mandodiddle
Well-known member
Does anybody know of a source of curly walnut and curly maple tenor ukulele neck blanks? I ordered some a few years ago, but I'm having a devil of a time trying to find any right now.
Thanks
Thanks
Source of curly walnut and curly maple tenor ukulele neck blanks
- Thread starter mandodiddle
- Start date
Kelali Kev
Well-known member
You could try getting in touch with Bruce at Notablewoods.com. He may be able to cut something to spec for you.
mandodiddle
Well-known member
Thanks Kelali Kev!
jupiteruke
Well-known member
You could also look at Hearne Hardwoods https://www.hearnehardwoods.com/
(Though I would not use maple or walnut for a neck, too heavy and I think it upsets the balance by making the instrument a bit 'top heavy'.)
(Though I would not use maple or walnut for a neck, too heavy and I think it upsets the balance by making the instrument a bit 'top heavy'.)
Not to derail this thread, but jupiteruke - have you found that to be a big problem? Black walnut is 37 lbs/cubic ft per wood-database.com, which is right in the range of more traditional woods (like honduran mahogany, also at 37 lbs/ft). Hard maple does get a little heavier of course.
jupiteruke
Well-known member
I like to keep things a light as possible. Numbers from the Wood Database. Lately I have mostly been using:
Spanish Cedar 29 lbs/ft3
tulip poplar 29 lbs/ft3
Alaskan yellow cedar 31 lbs/ft3
I have recently acquired some mahogany and it does not strike me as much heavier than Spanish Cedar, but I admit I have not measured it head-to-head. Feels like rapid second growth which may be lighter.
Spanish Cedar 29 lbs/ft3
tulip poplar 29 lbs/ft3
Alaskan yellow cedar 31 lbs/ft3
I have recently acquired some mahogany and it does not strike me as much heavier than Spanish Cedar, but I admit I have not measured it head-to-head. Feels like rapid second growth which may be lighter.
lauburu
Well-known member
How many necks can you get out of a cubic foot of wood?
Miguel
Miguel
Kekani
Well-known member
Most of my maple comes from Northwest Timber (nwtimber.com). Nice figured walnut as well.
I usually don’t use “Red Heart” Maple for the neck, just the bodies because its not always easy to come by. If its a Maple body, its a maple neck.
I have a custom neckthrough bass out of Birdseye Maple, with a Rosewood stringer. That maple machined really nice.
I usually don’t use “Red Heart” Maple for the neck, just the bodies because its not always easy to come by. If its a Maple body, its a maple neck.
I have a custom neckthrough bass out of Birdseye Maple, with a Rosewood stringer. That maple machined really nice.
Last edited:
jupiteruke
Well-known member
Since the Wood Database is an aggregate of wood (I assume) I decided to measure the density of various neck blanks around the shop. For my actual samples I got:
Density lbs/ft\3
34.1 Alaskan yellow cedar
30.4 Honduran mahogany
30.2 Tulip poplar
28.3 Spanish cedar
Pretty close to the Wood Database, though the mahogany is lighter, as I kind of expected it might be as it feels pretty light, and I suspect that it is rapidly grown plantation wood.
I just weighed two tenor necks that are underway. Both are fully shaped but unfinished, with fretted boards and peghead overlays place.
18" scale, 19 frets, quilted big leaf maple: 9.3 oz
17" scale, 18 frets, Honduran mahogany: 8.7 oz
This is apples and oranges to some extent because of the different scale lengths but it does suggest that there is very little weight difference that is attributable to the different woods. Even if one neck is a little heavier than another, only a portion of the extra weight is at the end of the neck while a portion is near the body and, thus, doesn't have all that much of an effect upon perceived balance. In other words, we're not talking about tacking all the extra weight out at the end of the peghead.
I have a hard time believing that the weight of the wood, within reason of course, would necessarily outweigh other criteria that might lead to one choice over another. I have no idea what fraction of a cubic foot ends up in an ukulele neck but it has to be a really small number so the differences in cubic foot weights that have been posted doesn't give us much guidance about the weight differences among finished necks made from woods of various densities.
Oh, and the maple has a double course of carbon along its length in case the quilted maple is less stable than mahogany. That adds additional weight so tends to minimize the effect of the weight of the included wood upon the measured difference between the two necks.
18" scale, 19 frets, quilted big leaf maple: 9.3 oz
17" scale, 18 frets, Honduran mahogany: 8.7 oz
This is apples and oranges to some extent because of the different scale lengths but it does suggest that there is very little weight difference that is attributable to the different woods. Even if one neck is a little heavier than another, only a portion of the extra weight is at the end of the neck while a portion is near the body and, thus, doesn't have all that much of an effect upon perceived balance. In other words, we're not talking about tacking all the extra weight out at the end of the peghead.
I have a hard time believing that the weight of the wood, within reason of course, would necessarily outweigh other criteria that might lead to one choice over another. I have no idea what fraction of a cubic foot ends up in an ukulele neck but it has to be a really small number so the differences in cubic foot weights that have been posted doesn't give us much guidance about the weight differences among finished necks made from woods of various densities.
Oh, and the maple has a double course of carbon along its length in case the quilted maple is less stable than mahogany. That adds additional weight so tends to minimize the effect of the weight of the included wood upon the measured difference between the two necks.
Last edited:
Pete Howlett
Well-known member
It's stiffness you are looking for in most aspects that 'count' in building stringed instruments. The weight paradigm is false. What you are looking for is the energy to be concentrated at the bridge end of the strings. Kasha recommended put lead in his headstocks to kill the energy there and drive it to the soundboard. Ans BTW, he didn't build; Schneider his luthier did. That's why it's called Kasha design bracing..... Now how many of you knew that?
BlackBearUkes
Well-known member
I looked at all things Kasha/Schneider in the past, books, drawing, etc. I heard and examined many guitars in that design. While there may be some ideas of value, the over all conclusion by the luthier community was a big yawn. Things didn't work in the way Kasha said they would and the sound was disappointing, because if they did, you would see many more builders following that principle.
Uke-alot
Well-known member
I'm not much of an instrument builder, but I am an engineer and I've done some loudspeaker building. In loudspeaker design, if your cabinet construction is contributing in any noticeable way to the way the speaker sounds, then it's time to go back to the drawing board and build a better cabinet (Of course, the volume of the cabinet and whether/how it is vented is very consequential, in the same way that the volume of a ukulele and the area of the sound hole(s) is consequential. But you really don't want your sides to resonate in an audible manner.).
In instrument design, I suspect we really want the parts to vibrate freely that are supposed to vibrate (strings, top) and we want the other parts to be as inert as possible (I know there are differences of opinion on the extent to which back and sides do and should contribute to sound). Of course, no one would want to carry around a concrete ukulele, so it becomes an exercise of figuring out what is enough, without creating an instrument that is excessively bulky or heavy. I also follow a banjo building forum, and there are periodic threads about whether multi-ply rims sound better than block rims, and/or which wood species have the "best" sonic qualities, etc. There's never really any satisfying resolution to those questions. I suspect the better questions would be: What wood species or rim construction techniques provide the greatest stiffness while keeping weight within a reasonable limit, and at what level of stiffness do diminishing returns start to set in (i.e., getting stiffer or stronger leads to a negligible improvement in sound)?
uke-alot - I think you're on the right track, although I think it's arguable that a speaker cabinet is a much more black and white problem than an acoustic instrument. For a speaker cabinet, it strikes me that the goal is "perfection" in the sense of reproducing the audio signal as accurately as possible. Whereas, with an instrument, we have an expectation of a certain tone and sometimes make decisions (or follow traditions) to get that tone, even if they're not "optimal" from an engineering perspective. I often wonder if people would actually like a ukulele that made a perfect, uncolored reproduction of the string's sound (if one could be built).
Uke-alot
Well-known member
I appreciate your point, but from a construction standpoint, I don't think the two things are really that far apart conceptually. In a speaker, all the sound should come from the driver diaphragms and ports (if present). In a stringed instrument, the vast majority of the sound should come from the top vibrating and sound hole, and that sound will be louder and (probably) better if other components aren't resonating (producing their own, different sounds, which might be out of phase with the top), nor absorbing the energy that should be driving the top. But maybe resonance from the back is part of the uke sound (or guitar, or whatever). I don't know the answer to that. But I think that underbuilding the neck or peghead could certainly deteriorate the sound, as well as reduce sustain.
You can't make a uke that delivers a pure tone without harmonics. Vibrating strings and wood naturally generate harmonics, and a uke that didn't wouldn't sound like a uke. When I first got interested in ukes a couple of years ago, I did some searching for characteristic frequency response measurements. I was curious to see if ukes typically produce higher levels of certain harmonics, which would explain why a uke sounds like a uke and a guitar sounds like a guitar, beyond the obvious different ranges in fundamental tones that they produce (and also steel vs nylon, etc.). I didn't find anything that really addressed that question, but would love to learn more if anyone has any links or thoughts on that.
As an aside, My wife has been playing uke for many years, and we have a concert uke that she bought years ago that almost never gets played. It's one that probably typically sells for $150-200, is attractive, appears to be reasonably well made of some kind of laminated wood, and seems more or less typical of what you find in that price range. It just never sounded very good. The C string, in particular, sounds sour no matter how it's tuned. No uke has perfect intonation, but this one isn't more wonky than others. So I got out my measurement mic, hooked it up to a computer through the sound card, and did some measurements of that uke and a couple others we had lying around using some software that has an RTA measurement utility. It turned out that the uke that sounded a bit sour was producing substantially higher levels of odd-order harmonics than the other ukes. Especially on the C string, the uke had an odd-order harmonic peak that was just a little lower in magnitude than the peak from the fundamental tone. But all four strings were producing substantial odd-order harmonics, and that's why, I believe, that it sounds bad. And I have no idea why. My secret fear is that I'll build my first uke and it will sound like that. Probably not a realistic fear, but it certainly would be a disappointment.
Even-order harmonics are even multiples of the fundamental tone (i.e., 2x, 4x) and odd-order harmonics are odd multiples (3x, 5x). In speaker design, higher quality speakers generally produce lower levels of all harmonic distortion (i.e. harmonics that aren't in the recording the speaker is playing) than lower quality speakers, and producing a speaker with relative low harmonic distortion is generally a design goal for quality home audio speakers. However, even-order harmonics are considered to be fairly benign, because they sound natural. Odd-order harmonics are minimized as much as possible in a quality speaker because they sound bad and unnatural. In particular, inexpensive speakers with metal-coned drivers can have an unpleasant "nails on the chalkboard" quality that comes from the crossover not adequately filtering odd-order harmonics. Speakers with paper cones produce more even-order and less odd-order harmonic distortion.
I think we're more or less saying the same thing, just explaining it from different directions. In a speaker cabinet, you want zero contribution from anything except the speaker itself - you want the rest of the structure to be totally inert. It's pretty cut and dry. In a ukulele, there is a similar theoretical concept that the soundboard (and strings) produce the tone, and everything else is just there to support those two components structurally. But the reality is that ukuleles are built so lightly, and from such imperfect materials (wood), that the rest of the structure does contribute - by damping or emphasizing certain harmonics, instead of just acting like a perfect totally inert support mechanism. We can try to influence or minimize these contributions, but if you were actually able to completely eliminate them, the resulting instrument would probably not actually sound like a ukulele any more. So, in effect, a uke needs to be "imperfect" to a certain extent, or else it won't sound like a uke any more.
The Luthier's Handbook by Robert Siminoff is a great resource for applying all of this to acoustic instruments, although it doesn't specifically address ukuleles.
Interesting to hear about the even vs odd thing with respect to that particular Concert not sounding nice. I'd love to get my hands on an instrument that emphasized odd harmonics like that to try to understand why.
The Luthier's Handbook by Robert Siminoff is a great resource for applying all of this to acoustic instruments, although it doesn't specifically address ukuleles.
Interesting to hear about the even vs odd thing with respect to that particular Concert not sounding nice. I'd love to get my hands on an instrument that emphasized odd harmonics like that to try to understand why.
Uke-alot
Well-known member
You certainly might be right. This is something I would like to understand better.
And the concert could be yours for the right price!
Seriously, I would like to sell it, but don't want to inflict it on anyone who hasn't had a chance to play it first and decide if they like it or not. And it was expensive enough that I would prefer not to give it away, but we're not using it....
sequoia
Well-known member
In a way, you are over thinking this. What you are hearing (and seeing) is the fundamental problem of ukuleles in that there are intonation problems inherent in using re-entrant tuning with a saddle that is parallel to the nut. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reentrant_tuning). It will never give perfect intonation by its very nature because it is physically impossible. Typically this is most apparent on the 'C' string. This has nothing to do with the woods involved or complex issues of harmonics.
I would also add that the "sour" sound of ukuleles is what gives them their humble and lovable character. These are not little guitars. They are ukuleles. They are meant to be strummed on the beach under a full moon and are not meant to have perfect harmonics. They are an instrument of feeling and... love.
Last edited:
Uke-alot
Well-known member
Sorry if I didn't give enough information to be clear. This issue is not about intonation, although I initially suspected it was. As I noted above, the intonation on this uke is not significantly worse than the other ukes we own. This problem is equally evident when an in-tune open string is plucked as when a fretted string is plucked. The measurements I made were of single, in-tune, open strings being plucked. All ukes tested sounded like ukes. One uke distinguished itself by having a very strong odd-order harmonic peak on the C string, plus significant odd-order peaks on the other strings, and the overall tone of that uke is poor enough that we don't play it. In short, the C string, even played open, by itself, and perfectly in tune, just sounds "wrong." The other ukes were not completely free of odd-order harmonics, but they were substantially lower in magnitude.
